the Trinity and the Deity of the Holy Ghost may be fairly and sufficiently proved from those Texts which the Orthodox bring for them without Ancient Tradition though without it they could not be demonstrated from them because they do not assert it in express words But then as those Texts in Conjunction with Tradition do put those Doctrines out of all reasonable doubt So do the other which I have cited in Conjunction with the Practice of the Ancient Church put the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism out of Question because the Church in the next Age unto the Apostles practiced Infant-Baptism as an Apostolical Tradition and by consequence as an Institution of Christ In like manner as the Intrinsecal Arguments taken rom the Style Sanctity Dignity and Efficacy of the Holy Scriptures and the perpetual Analogy and Conformity of the several Books contained in them are by themselves but probable and no demonstrative reasons that all the Books contained in the Canon and no other are the Word of God but in conjunction with the Testimony and Authority of the Ancient Catholick Church amount to a Demonstration So though the Texts which I have cited are of themselves but probable Arguments for the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism yet in concurrence with such a Comment upon them as the Practice of the next Age unto the Apostles and all Ages since from one Generation to another they amount to such a demonstration as is called in Logick Demonstratio ducens ad absurdum and are a violent Presumption that Children ought to be Baptized I might run on the Parallel as to the other Instances of Episcopal Government the admitting of Women to the Communion and the Observation of the Lord's day and therefore let the Adversaries of Infant-Baptism consider well with themselves Whether rejecting of it after a Concurrence of such Texts and such a Tradition to establish it they do not teach others especially Atheists pure Deists and Sabbatizers to which I may add Scepticks Socinians and Quakers a way to deny all the rest Thus much I have said concerning the requisite necessity of Infant-Baptism to shew that it is not lawful to separate from a Church for appointing of Infants to be Baptized when there are such cogent reasons arising from the concurrence of Scripture and Antiquity to presume that Infant-Baptism was an Apostolical Tradition and an Institution of Christ And I have designedly called it a requisite to distinguish it from an absolute necessity lest the Reader should think I were of St. Augustin's Opinion who thought Baptism indispensibly necessary to the Salvation of Infants so that a Child dying unbaptized through the carelesness or Superstition of the Parents or through their mistaken Belief of the unlawfulness of Infant-Baptism were * Potest proinde rectè dici parvulos sine Baptismo de corpore exeuntes in damnatione omnium mitissimâ futuros Multum autem fallit fallitur qui eos in damnatione praedicat non futuros dicente Apostolo Judicium ex uno delicto August de peccat merit remiss contra Pelag. l. 1. c. 16. Vid. contra Julianum Pelag. l. 5. c. 8. infallibly damned No I intended no such severe Conclusion because we ought not to tye God to the same means to which he hath tied us but only to shew that the Baptism of young Children is antecedently necessary and †Articles of Religion Artic. 27. in any wise to be retained in the Church as being most agreeable with the Holy Scripture the Apostolical Practice and the Institution of Christ And to set this way of arguing more home upon the Consciences of those who Dissent from the Church upon the account of Infant-Baptism I appeal unto them Whether Scripture and Antiquity standing against Infant-Baptism in the same posture of evidence that they now stand for it it would not be unjustifiable for any sort of Men to separate from the Church for not Baptizing Infants as they do now for Baptizing of them Let us suppose for Example That the Disciples of Christ instead of rebuking those that brought little Children unto him had brought them to him themselves and he had been much displeased at them for it and said I suffer not little Children to come unto me for the Kingdom of God is not of such Let us put the case That two Evangelists had recorded this supposed Story and accordingly we had been assured by the Writers of the two next Ages to the Apostles that then there was no Baptizing of Infants and that the Apostles Baptized them not and that there never was any Church in after Ages which did practise Infant-Baptism Upon this Supposition I appeal unto them Whether it would not be highly unreasonable to separate from all the Churches in the World for not allowing of Infant-Baptism against the Concurrence of such a Text to the contrary and the sence and practise of the Catholick Church The case which I suppose one way is the real case the other only with this difference that the supposed case would have but the benefit of one Text whereas the real hath the benefit of many in Conjunction with Tradition and therefore seeing there are so many Texts and such a cloud of Witnesses for Infant-Baptism Why should it not be looked upon as one of the common Notions of Christianity like the Parallel Doctrines above-mentioned though it be not commanded especially when as I have shewed there was no need of commanding of it in express Words I know the Dissenters of all sorts and especially those for whose sake I am now writing are bred up in great prejudice and sinister Suspicions against Tradition declaiming against it as very uncertain and against the use of it as very derogatory to the sufficiency of the Word of God But as to the first part of their Objection against the certainty of Tradition I desire them to take notice that there is a certain as well as an uncertain an undoubted as well as a pretended Tradition as there are true certain and undoubted as well as pretended and uncertain Scriptures and that there are sure ways whereby ingenious and inquisitive Men may satisfie themselves which is one and which is the other The way then to find out true and undoubted Tradition as * Advers Haeres c. 3. Vincentius Lirinensis teacheth is to try it by these three Tests Universality Antiquity and Consent First By Universality If all the Churches wheresoever dispersed or how different soever in their Languages and Customs do believe or practice such a Doctrine Secondly Antiquity If what all the Churches all the World over doth so believe or practice was no innovation but Believed and Practiced in the Ages next to the Apostles when such Fathers governed the Churches or such Famous Men lived in them as knew the Apostles and conversed with them or lived near unto those or with those Apostolical Men who so knew them or conversed with them or lived near unto them Thirdly
the practice of it doth prevent such shameful and scandalous Neglects of Baptism which to the great prejudice of Christianity as Experience hath taught us would otherwise arise in the Church Thus much upon enquiry into the lawfulness and expediency of Infant-Baptism to shew Christian Parents what an indispensable Obligation lies upon their Consciences to bring their Children to be Baptized in Obedience to the Church which hath appointed Infant-Baptism but then if Infant-Baptism be not only necessary because the Church hath appointed it but the Church hath appointed it because it is necessary and in any wise to be retained then this Antecedent sort of necessity doth yet lay a stronger Obligation upon the Consciences of Parents to initiate their Children as being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles and the Intention and Will of Christ First As being most agreeable to the practice of the Apostles who it is highly to be presumed authorized the practice of Infant-Baptism because it was practised in the next Age unto them And Secondly As being most agreeable to the Intention and Will of Christ who it is to be presumed would have forbidden and countermanded the Jewish practice of initiating Infants if he had not had a mind they should be Baptized Wherefore * Nam quum paedo-Baptismus in Ecclesiâ Judaicâ in admissione Proselytorum ita fuit notus usitatus frequens ut nihil ferè notius usitatius frequentius non opus erat ut aliquo praecepto roboraretur Nam Christus Baptismum in manus suas atque in usum Evangelicum suscepit qualem invenit hoc solùm addito quod ad digniorem finem atque largiorem usum promoverit Novit satis gens universa parvulos folitos Baptizari Illud praecepto opus non habuit quod Communi usu semper invaluerat Si prodiret jam edictum regale in haec verba Recipiat se unusquisque die dominico ad publicum conventum in Ecclesia insaniet certè ille quicunque olim hinc argueret non celebrandas esse die dominico in publicis conventibus preces conciones Psalmodias eo quod nulla in edicto de lis mentio Nam cavit edictum de celebratione diei dominicae in publicis conventibus in genere de particularibus autem divini cultûs speciebus ibidem celebrandis non opus erat ut esset mentio cum istae ante datum edictum cum daretur semper ubique notae essent in usu assiduo Ipsissimo hoc modo res se habuit cum Baptismo Christus cum instituit in Sacramentum Evangelicum quo in professionem Evangelii omnes admitterentur ut olim in Proselytismum ad Religionem Judaicum Particularis eò spectantia modus scilicet Baptizandi aetas Baptizanda sexus Baptizandus c. regulâ definitione opus non habuerunt eo quod haec vel lippis tensoribus nota erant ex communi usu E contra ergo planâ apertâ prohibitione opus erat ut Infantes parvuli non Baptizarentur si eos Baptizandos nollet servator Si aboleri istam consuetudinem vellet Christus aperte prohibuisâ—et Silentium ergo ejus Scripturae paedo-baptismum sirmat propagat Lightfoot Horae Hebraitae in Marth 3.6 his very not repealing of that practice is a sufficient Demonstration that it was his pleasure it should be continued it was the practice of the Jewish Church before he came and the practice of the Church Christian not long after he departed and we find the practice of it in the one harmoniously answering to the practice of it in the other and therefore what was before and what was after this time we may well presume was continued in the interim during the time of the Apostles as his presumed Will and Intention who never did or spoke any thing that can reasonably be interpreted that he would have the Jewish custom of admitting Infants into the Church laid aside and therefore his silence and the silence of the Scriptures are so far from being Arguments against Infant-Baptism that considering the Antecedent usage of it they are very strong Presumptions for it as the Learned Author in the Margin foregoing doth excellently prove To this purpose also have I discoursed above upon the Second and Third Questions and therefore if Christ in the Reformation of the Church from the Law into the Gospel did not repeal the Ancient practice of Infant-Baptism but left Baptism to be administred in the same Latitude as before his time then it must needs be concluded that there lies the same Obligation upon Parents abstracting from the Commands of the Church to desire Baptism for their Children as for grown Profelytes to desire it for themselves For what authority soever enacts any thing concerning Children or Persons under the years of discretion doth lay at least an implicite Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to see that act be performed As if for Example an Act of Parliament should be made that all Persons whatsoever Men Women and Children should pay so much an Head unto the King the Act by the nature of it would oblige Parents and Pro-parents to pay for their Children and the Minors in their custody as well as for themselves Or if in the time of a general Contagion the Supream Power should command that all Men Women and Children should every Morning take such an Antidote that Command would oblige Parents to give it unto their Children as well as to take it themselves Just so the Ordinance of Baptism being intended or instituted by our Saviour in its ancient Latitude for Children as well as grown Persons it must needs lay an Obligation upon Parents and Pro-parents to bring them to the Holy Sacrrament otherwise the Divine Institution would in part be made void and frustrated of the Ends for which it was instituted as if it did not also lay an Obligation upon Adult Persons to offer themselves unto the Holy Sacrament it would be of no force at all To sum up all in short When our Lord first appointed Baptism and afterwards said Go and Proselyte all Nations Baptizing them c. either he intended that Children should be Baptized as well as Grown Proselytes or he did not if he did not intend they should be Baptized Why did he not plainly discover that Intention Nay Why did he not plainly forbid them to be Baptized as they were wont to be but if he intended they should be Baptized according to the ancient custom in the Jewish Church Parents are as much bound to offer them unto Baptism as Adult Believers Men and Women are bound to offer themselves What I have here said about the Obligation which lies upon Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism concerns all Pro-parents to whose care Children are committed as Guardians Tutors and Church-Wardens and lest any should ask as some Sceptically do at What time they are bound to bring them unto Baptism As soon as they are born or the
Age. These are all the Authorities for Infant-Communion that I know of till St. Augustin's time whereas besides the authority of St. Cyprian which is the first they have for Communicating Infants we have the authority of a whole Council of Fathers in which he presided and of Origen Tertullian and Irenaeus who was the Scholar of St. Polycarp and the Grand-Scholar of St. John And then whereas among the Writers of the 4th Century there are but the two above-cited who make mention of Infant-Communion we have St. * See them all cited at large in Walker's Plea for Infant-Baptism from p. 266. to p. 275. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Chrysostom St. Athanasius Gregory Nazianzen and the Third Council of Carthage who all speak of Infant-Baptism as of a thing generally practised and most of them as of a thing which ought to be practised in the Church Furthermore none of the four Testimonies for Infant-Communion speak of it as of an Apostolical Tradition as Origen doth of Infant-Baptism not to mention that the Pelagians never owned the necessity of Infant-Communion as they did of Infant-Baptism All which things considered shew that there is nothing near the like Evidence in Antiquity for the practice of the one as there is for that of the other And as there is not the like evidence for the constant successive and general practice of Infant-Communion that there is for Infant-Baptism So there is not the like Reason for the practice of it First Because Baptism is the Sacrament or Mystery of Initiation of which Persons of all Ages are capable it being instituted chiefly for an initiatory Sign to solemnize the admission of the Baptized Person into the Church and to Seal all the Blessings of the Gospel unto him as a Member of Christ This is the Substance or Chief end of Baptism which as I have shewed upon the Second and Fourth Questions is equally answered in the Baptism of Children as well as of professing Believers Confession of Faith as well as Confession of Sins being but accidental Circumstantials which are necessary with respect to the State of the Person to be Baptized but not to Baptism it self But on the contrary the Holy Eucharist or Communion is the Sacrament of Perfection and Consummation in the Christian Religion being primarily and chiefly instituted for a Sacrificial Feast in remembrance of Christ's Death and Passion which being an act of great Knowledge and Piety Children are not capable to perform But Secondly There is not the like Reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because that is grounded upon the Authority of many Texts of Scripture which without the Concurrence of Tradition are fairly and genuinely interpretable for it but this is grounded only upon one Text John 6.53 Except ye eat the Flesh of the Son of Man and drink his Blood ye have no life in you which it is doubtful whether it is to be understood of the Holy Eucharist or no because it cannot be understood of it but in a proleptical sence the Lord's Supper having not been yet instituted by him or if it be to be so understood yet the sence of it ought to be regulated by the Chief end of its Institution contained in those words of our blessed Saviour do this in remembrance of me and this do ye as oft as ye drink it in remembrance of me Wherefore though this Text were literally to be understood of the Holy Eucharist as St. Augustine first interprets it yet it ought not to be strained to Infant-Communion because Infants cannot partake of the Holy Banquet in remembrance of Christ And therefore though the Custom of Communicating Infants prevailed by Degrees in some Ages of the Church yet the Western Churches discerning the mistake upon which it was grounded have long since laid it aside though they still continue the practice of Infant-Baptism as fully answering the Chief end of Baptism and as being founded upon more and clearer Texts of Scriptures and a much more noble Tradition than Infant-Communion is But Thirdly There is not the like reason for Baptizing and Communicating Infants because the Correspondent practice of the Jewish Church in Infant-Circumcision and Infant-Baptism answered as a Pattern unto that under the Law but there was nothing of a Pattern under it which answered so to Infant-Communion because a Child never partook of the * Exod. 12.26 27. Passover before he was old enough to take his Father by the hand and to go up from the Gates of Jerusalem unto the Mount of the Temple and to enquire about the meaning of the Service and was capable of understanding the nature of it as it was done in remembrance of their Deliverance out of Egypt And in like manner when the Children of Christians are old enough to be instructed in the nature of the Holy Communion and to understand that then they may partake of it be it as soon as it will if they are Baptized and Confirmed though it is true that Christian Children are usually much older than the Jewish were before they Communicate which is merely accidental because it requires a riper reason to understand the Mystery of the Holy Eucharist which is done in remembrance of our Spiritual Deliverance by the Sacrifice of Christ both God and Man upon the Cross than to understand the plain and easie meaning of the Passover which was annually kept in remembrance of the Temporal Deliverance of the Jews But to speak yet more fully of Infant-Communion the practice of it is so far from prejudicing the Cause of Infant-Baptism that it mightily confirms it because none were or could be admitted to partake of the Holy Communion till they were validly * Theodoret. Therapeut Serm. 2. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptized and therefore the practice of Infant-Communion is a most emphatical Declaration that all the Churches wherein it ever was or a As in the Greek Russian and Abyssin Churches and among the Christians of St. Thomas in the Indies still is practised were of Opinion that the Baptism of Infants was as lawful and valid as that of professing Believers can be As for the Original of this custom it is not known when it began probably it came in by degrees from the ancient and laudable custom of administring the Lord's Supper to grown Persons presently after their Baptism and if so many of the ancient Churches were so tender towards Infants as to bring them to the Communion rather than deprive them of the least shadow of right what shall be said in excuse of those uncharitable Men who will rather destroy all the Churches in the World than bring their Children unto Baptism of which they are capable and to which they have a Right so highly probable if not certain and infallible as I have proved above The Second Objection against Infant-Baptism which I took no notice of but reserved for this place is taken from their incapacity to engage themselves in Covenant unto God For say these Men
Preach the Gospel to every Creature saying He that believeth and is Baptized shall be saved I say seeing Children are capable of the benefits of Baptism and the Apostles who received this Commission knew them to be capable of it and to have had both Circumcision and Baptism administred to them in the Jewish Church how should they or any others imagine from the tenure of such a Commission which was given unto them as Planters of Churches but that it was Christ's intention that Children as well as grown Persons were to be Baptized Should God in the days of David or Solomon have called eleven or twelve Prophets and given them the same Commission which Mutatis Mutandis Christ gave to his Apostles bidding them go and Teach all Nations the Law Circumcising and Baptizing of them in the Name of the God of Abraham and teaching them to do whatsoever he had commanded them I say should he have sent them out to Preach the Law to every Creature saying He that believeth aad is Circumcised and baptized shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned would a Commission so worded have been of it self a sufficient ground for them to think that it was God's intention to restrain Circumcision and Baptism to adult Persons contrary to the practice of the Jewish Church Or if in a short History of their Mission and Undertaking we should have read that they Circumcised and Baptized as many Proselytes as gladly received their word would this have been an Argument that they did not also Circumcise and Baptize the Infants of those believing Proselytes according to the Laws and Usages of their Mother-Church No certainly such a Commission to Proselyte Strangers to the Jewish Religion could not in reason have been strained to prejudice the customary right of Infants to Circumcision and Baptism and therefore in parity of reason neither could the Apostles so understand their Commission without other Notices as to exclude Infants from Sacramental Initiation into the Church The plain truth is their Commission was a direction how they should proselyte Strangers to Christianity according to the nature of propagating a new Religion in strange Countries as it is set forth by the Apostle Rom. 20.14 How then shall they call on him in whom they have not believed And how shall they believe in him of whom they have not heard And how shall they hear without a Preacher And how shall they Preach unless they be sent Accordingly they were sent out to Preach or to Disciple Men and Women by Preaching and to Baptize as many of them as should upon their Preaching Believe and Repent But though the Order of Nature required that they should proceed in this Method with grown Persons as the Jews were wont to do with Proselytes to the Law yet it did not hinder that they who had been born and bred Jews should initiate the Infants of such Proselyted Persons according to the usage of the Jewish Church What need Christ have said more unto them when he sent them out than to bid them Go and teach all Nations Baptizing them in the Name of the Father c. Or to Preach the Gospel to every Creature and tell them that he that would believe the Gospel and be Baptized should be saved But then the respective sence of these words could only concern adult Persons and their qualification for Baptism but could in no reason be construed by them to exclude Infants but only unbelieving Men and Women whereof none were to be admitted into the Church by Baptism before they were taught Christianity and had confessed their Faith and Sins Should God as I said before call twelve Men of any Church where Infant-Baptism had been the constant and undoubted practice and bid them go and Preach the Gospel in the Indies to every creature and to say He that believeth the Doctrine which we Preach and is Baptized with the Baptism which we Administer shall be Saved I appeal to any Dissenter upon the account of Infant-Baptism whether he thinks that these Men bred up to the practice of Infant-Baptism could in probability so interpret this Commission as to think that it was God's intention that they should exclude the Infants of believing Proselytes from Baptismal admission into the Church The Professors against Infant-Baptism put the greatest stress upon these words of our Saviour He that believeth and is baptized shall be Saved But if they would well consider the next words they would find that Infants are not at all concerned in them because it follows but he that believeth not shall be Damned The same want of Faith which here excludes from Baptism excludes also from Salvation and therefore it cannot be understood of Infants unless they will say with the * The Petrobusians vid. Cassandri praefat ad Duc. Jul. Cli. praefat advers Anabaptistas Original Anabaptists that the same incapacity of believing which excludes them from Baptism excludes them from Salvation too Wherefore it is plain that the believing and not believing in that Text is only to be understood of such as are in capacity of hearing and believing the Gospel that is of grown Persons just as the words in Joh. 3.36 He that believeth on the Son of God hath Everlasting Life and he that believeth not shall not see Life but the Wrath of God abide thou him Thus far have I proceeded to shew how inconclusively and absurdly the Anabaptists go about to prove that Infants ought to be excluded from Baptism from the fore-mentioned Texts which speak of the Order of Proselyting grown Persons and their Qualifications for Baptism and as little success have they with some others which they bring to shew how unprofitable Baptism is for Infants as that in 1. Pet 3.21 Where the Apostle tells us that external Baptism of putting away the filth of the Flesh of which Infants are only capable signifies nothing but the answer of a good Conscience towards God of which say they Infants are altogether uncapable to which the answer is very easie that another Apostle tells us that external Circumcision of which Infants were only capable profited nothing without keeping the Law which Infants could not keep nay that the outward Circumcision of which Infants were only capable was nothing but that the inward Circumcision of the heart and in the spirit was the true Circumcision and yet Infants remaining Infants were utterly uncapable of that so that their way of arguing from this and such like Texts proves nothing because it proves too much and stretches the words of the Apostles unto undue consequences beyond their just Meaning which was only to let both Jews and Christians know that there was no resting in external Circumcision or Baptism but not that their Infants were unprofitably Circumcised and Baptized So weak and unconcluding are all the Arguments by which the Anabaptists endeavour from Scripture to prove that Christ hath limited the Subject of Baptism unto grown Persons put them all
Kingdom of Heaven tho they denied that they were Baptized for the Remission of Original Sin But thirdly If Infant-Baptism were not in Practice from the first Plantation of Christian Churches or were derivable from any other Cause than Apostolical Tradition let the Opposers of it tell us any other probable way how it came to be the uniform practice of all Churches not only of such as were Colonies of the same Mother-Church or had Correspondence with one another by their Bishops and Presbyters but of such as were Original Plantations and betwixt which there was likely none or but very little Communication by reason of the vast distance and want of intercourse betwixt the Countries where b Brerewoods Enquiries c. 23 Cassand exposit de auctor Consult Bapt. Infant p. 692. they lived Among these of the latter sort are the Abassin-Church in the further Ethiopia and the c Osor l. 3. de rebus gest Eman cit à Vossio in disp 14. de Baptismo Brerewoods Enquiries c. 20. Indian Church in Coulan and Crangonor and about Maliapur Planted by St. Thomas both which practice Infant-Baptism tho in all probability they never had it one from the other or both from any third Church It is very incredible that God should suffer all Churches in all the Parts of the World to fall into one and the same Practice which certainly is a Church-destroying Practice if the Apostles and their Assistants did not Baptize Infants but only grown Persons One may easily imagine that God might suffer all Churches to fall into such an harmless Practise as that of Infant Communion or that the Fathers of the Church might comply with the Religious fondness of the People in bringing their Children to the Sacrament as we do with bringing them to Prayers but that God should let them all not preserving any one for a Monument of Apostolical Purity fall into a Practice which destroys the Being of the Church is at least a thousand times more Incredible than that the Apostles without a Prohibition from Christ to the contrary and no such Prohibition is Extant in the New Testament should Baptize Infants according to the Practise of the Jewish Church But in the fourth Place what Account can rationally be given why the Jewish Christians who were offended at the neglect of Circumcision should not have been much more offended if the Apostles had refused to initiate Children under the New Testament which had always been initiated under the Old Is it reasonable to believe that those who complained so much meerly because the Apostles Taught the Jews which lived among the Gentiles that they should not Circumcise their Children would not have complained much more if they had not Baptized them but quite excluded them like the Infants of Unbelievers from Admission into the Church It must in all probability have galled them very much to see their Children Treated like the Children of meer Strangers and to have had no visible difference put between the Infants of those that Embraced and those that resisted the Faith For they always looked upon Pagan Children as Common and Unclean but upon their own as Separate and Holy and St. Paul makes the same distinction between them 1 Cor. 7.14 But had the Apostles taught that the Children of those who were in Covenant with God had no more right unto Baptismal Initiation than the Children of Idolaters who were out of the Covenant they had Taught a Doctrine which certainly would have offended them more than all they Preached against Circumcision and keeping the Ceremonial Law Wherefore since we never read among their many Complaints upon the alteration of the Jews Customs that they complained of their Childrens not being initiated by Baptism it is a greater presumption that the Apostles and their Assistants Baptized their Children then the want of an Express Example of Infant-Baptism in the New Testament is that they Baptized them not Having now shewed first that Infants are not uncapable of Baptism Secondly That they are not excluded from it by Christ but that on the contrary we have very convincing Reasons to presume that the Baptism of Infants as well as of grown Persons was intended by him Let us now proceed to make a fair and impartial enquiry upon the Third Question Quest III. Whether it is lawful to separate from a Church which appointeth Infants to be Baptized And this considering what I have said upon the former Questions must be determined in the Negative Whether we consider Infant-Baptism only as a thing lawful and allowable or as a Thing highly requisite or necessary to be done I know very well that my Adversaries in this Controversie will be apt to deny this distinction betwixt Lawful and Necessary as acknowledging nothing in Religious matters to be lawful but what is necessary according to that common Principle imbibed by all sorts of Dissenters That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is commanded by some Precept or directed unto by some special Example in the Word of God Hence they ordinarily say Can you shew us any Precept or Example for Baptizing Infants in the New Testament if you can we will grant that the appointment of it is lawful but if you cannot we disallow it as unlawful nay as an Usurpation and will never be of a Church which so Usurpeth it over the Consciences of Men. This way of Arguing is plausible to the Vulgar and would be very good were there such a Principle in the Scripture as this from whence they Argue viz. That nothing is to be appointed in Religious matters but what is warranted by Precept or Example in the Word of God Wherefore as the Men with whom I have to deal in this Controversie are generally Persons of good natural Understandings So in the First place I beg them to consider that there is no such Rule in the Scripture as this and therefore those who teach it for a Scripture-rule or Precept do themselves impose upon Mens Consciences as bad as Papists and like them and the Pharisees of old teach the Traditions of Men for Doctrines of God On the contrary the Gospel tells us that Sin is the Transgression of a Law and that where there is no Law there is no Transgression and according to this plain and intelligible Rule though the Baptizing of Infants were not commanded in the Scriptures yet the Church would have Power and Authority to appoint it upon supposition that it is not forbid Secondly I desire them to consider the absurdity of this pretended Scripture-rule in that it takes away the distinction betwixt barely lawful or allowable and necessary and leaves no Negative mean betwixt necessary and sinful but makes things forbidden and things not commanded to be the very same Thirdly I desire them to consider what a slavish Principle this is and how inconsistent it is with the free and manly nature of the Christian Religion under which we should be in a far more servile
Consent If it appear that such a Doctrine was the consentient belief or practice of all the Fathers in those Ages or of all except a very few who had no proportion to the rest To which I will add First That this Tradition must be written and not Oral And Secondly That it must be proved in every Age from Books that were written in it and whose Authors whether under their own or under borrowed Names had no interest to write so And therefore though the Testimonies for Infant-Baptism in the Constitutions going under the name of * L. 6. c. 19. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Baptize your Infants educate them in the Discipline and Admonition of God for saith our Lord Suffer little Children to come unto me and forbid them not Clemens Romanus and the Book of Ecclesiastical Hierarchy bearing the name of a C. 7. Where arguing for Infant-Baptism he saith Of this we say the same things which our Divine Ministers of Holy things instructed by Divine Tradition brought down to us Dionysius the Areopagite are of no authority as to the first Century when St. Clement and St. Denis lived yet they are most excellent authorities for the third and fourth Century when they were written because they had no interest to write for Infant-Baptism The like I may say of the Testimony which the b Quaest respons 56. Where he saith That there is this difference betwixt Baptized and unbaptized Infants that Baptized Infants enjoy the good things of Baptism which those that are not Baptized do not enjoy and that they enjoy them by the Faith of those who offer them to Baptism Ancient and Judicious Author of the Answers to the Orthodox concerning some Questions gives of Infant-Baptism it is of no authority as for the second Century when Justin Martyr whose name it bears flourished but being a disinteressed writer it is of excellent authority for the third when it was written So much for the Test whereby to try certain and undoubted from uncertain and doubted Tradition and happy had it been for the Church of God if all Writers at the beginning of the Reformation had made this distinction and not written so as many of them have done against all Tradition without any discrimination whereas Tradition as I have here stated it is not only an harmless thing but in many cases very useful and necessary for the Church It was by Tradition in this sence that the Catholicks or Orthodox defended themselves in the fourth Century against the Arians and the Church of Africk against the Donatists and the Protestants defend themselves as to the Scripture-Canon and many other things against the Innovations of the Papists And therefore in answer to the Second part of their Objection against Tradition as detracting from the Sufficiency of the Scriptures I must remind them that the Scriptures whose sufficiency we admire as well as they cannot be proved to be the Word of God without Tradition and that though they are sufficient where they are understood to determine any Controversie yet to the right understanding and interpretation of them in many points Tradition is as requisite as the * Lex currit cum praxi practice of the Courts is to understand the Books of the Law This is so true that the Anabaptists themselves cannot defend the Baptizing of such grown Persons as were born and bred in the Church merely from the Scriptures in which the very Institution of Baptism hath a special regard unto Proselytes who from Judaism or Gentilism would come over unto the Christian Faith Accordingly they cannot produce one Precept or Example for Baptizing of such as were born of Christian Parents in all the New Testament but all the Baptized Persons we read of in it were Jews or Gentiles and therefore they cannot defend themselves against the Quakers who for this and other Reasons have quite laid aside Baptism without the Tradition and Practice of the Church Quest IV. Whether it be a Duty incumbent upon Christian Parents to bring their Children unto Baptism To state this Question aright I must proceed in the same order that I did upon the last First In arguing from the bare lawfulness and allowableness of Infant-Baptism And Secondly From the necessity thereof As to the lawfulness of it I have already shewn upon the last Question That there is no necessity of having a Command or Example for to justifie the practice of Infant-Initiation but it is sufficient that it is not forbidden to make it lawful and allowable under the Gospel Nay I have shewed upon the Second Question that of the two there is more reason that Christians should have had an express command to leave off or lay down the practice of Infant-Initiation because it was commanded by God in Infant-Circumcision and approved by him in Infant-Baptism which the Jewish Church added to Infant-Circumcision under the Legal State Commands are usually given for the beginning of the practice of something which was never in practice before but to justifie the continuation of an anciently instituted or anciently received practice it is sufficient that the Power which instituted or approved it do not countermand or forbid it and this as I have shewn being the case of Infants-Initiation the Initiation of them by Baptism under the Gospel must at least be lawful and allowable and if it be so then Parents and Pro-parents are bound in Conscience to bring them unto Baptism in Obedience unto the Orders of the Church For the Church is a Society of a People in Covenant with God and in this Society as in all others there are Superiors and in Inferiors some that must Order and some that must observe Orders some that must Command and some that must Obey and therefore if the Catholick Church or any Member of it commands her Children to observe any lawful thing they are bound by the Common-Laws of all Government and by the Precepts in the Gospel which regard Ecclesiastical Order and Discipline to observe her Commands Obey them saith the * Heb. 13.17 Apostle who have the Rule over you and submit your selves unto them for they watch for your Souls Accordingly we read that St. †Act. 16.4 Paul as he went through the Grecian Cities delivered the Christians the Decrees which the Apostles had made at Jerusalem to keep but I think I need not spend more time in the Proof of a thing which all Dissenters will grant me for though they differ from us as to the Subject of pure Ecclesiastical Power yet they all agree that there is such a Power and that all lawful Commands proceeding from it ought to be Obey'd Wherefore if Infants are not uncapable of Baptismal Initiation as is proved under the first Question nor excluded from it by Christ as is proved under the Second but on the contrary there are very good Reasons to presume that Christ at least allowed them the benefit and honour of Baptism as well as
next day after or when I answer by shewing the impertinency of that Question in reference to Grown Believers thus When must a Believing Man or Woman be Baptized As soon as he Believes or the next day after or when And truly the Answer is the same to both Questions at any time the Gospel indulging a discretional Latitude in both Cases and only forbidding the wilful neglect of the Ordinance and all unreasonable and needless delays thereof Quest V. Whether it is lawful to Communicate with Believers who were only Baptized in their Infancy The stating of this depends upon what I have said upon the Second and Third Questions to prove That Infants are capable Subjects of Baptism and that it is lawful to Baptize them and if I have not erred as I hope I have not in those two Determinations then the Baptism of Infants is lawful and valid and if the Baptism of them be lawful and valid then it cannot be unlawful to Communicate with them when they come to be Men and Women Accordingly it never entred into the Heart of any of the ancient Christians to refuse Communion with grown Believers who had been Baptized in their Infancy whether they were Baptized in perfect health as Children most commonly were or only in danger of Death as the Children of those Novatian kind of Parents above mentioned always were who were so far from thinking Infant-Baptism a Nullity or Corruption of Baptism that they thought it necessary for them in case of apparent danger and durst not let them die unbaptized Some others deferred the Baptizing of their Children because they thought them too weak to endure the Severities of the Trine immersion and others perhaps according to the private Opinion of a De Baptismo c. 18. Ait quidem dominus nolite illos prohibere ad me venire veniant ergò dum adolescunt veniant dum discunt dum quò veniant docentur Tertullian and b 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Orat. 40. Nazianzen thought is more convenient to delay the Baptizing of them till they were capable of being Catechized between Three and Four years old but still this delay of Baptism supposed their continuing in health but in case of danger they thought it c 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 necessary to Baptize them and if they survived the danger looked upon them as lawfully and validly Baptized These were all the Pleas we read of for deferring the Baptism of Infants among the Ancients who never urged this for one that Infant-Baptism was unlawful or invalid No They never argued against it from the want of those pre-requisite Conditions in Children which Christ and the Apostles required in Adult Proselytes nor from the want of Precept and Example for it in the New Testament but so understood the Scriptures as to think it as lawful and warrantable as the Baptism of grown Believers and necessary in case of danger and just so did those who deferred their Baptism for fear of sinning after it think the Baptism of Men and Women only necessary at the last extremity in apparent danger of Death But then if the ordinary practice of Infant-Baptism be not only lawful and valid but also necessary as appearing most agreeable to the presumed Will of Christ who did not countermand the practice of it and most conformable to the practice of the Apostles as can be proved from the practice of the very next Age unto them then it must not only be lawful to Communicate with Believers who were Baptized in their Infancy but an exceeding great Sin and Presumption to refuse Communion with them upon that account In a word If Infant-Baptism be not only lawful but necessary what a grievous and provoking Sin must it needs be to disown those for Members of Christ's Body whom he owns to be such But if it be neither as Anabaptists vainly pretend then there hath not been a true Church upon the Face of the Earth for Eleven hundred Years nor a Church for above Fifteen hundred with which a true Christian could Communicate without Sin This is a very absurd and dreadful consequence and inconsistent with the purity of the Apostolical Ages while the Church was so full of Saints Martyrs and Miracles and represented as * See Dr. More 's Apocalypsis Apoc. Preface p. 20. and on the 11. Ch. of the Rev. v. 1 2. Symmetral by the Spirit of God under the Symbol of Measuring the Temple of God and the Altar Revel 11.1 2. THE CONCLUSION ALthough in the management of this Controversie against the Anabaptists I have endeavoured so to state the Case of Infant-Baptism as to obviate or answer all the Considerable Pleas and Material Objections which they are wont to make against it yet there are two of their Objections of which I have yet taken no notice thinking it better that I might avoid tediousness and confusion in determining upon the preceding Questions to Propose and Answer them a part by themselves The First of these two is the ancient Custom of giving the Communion unto Infants which they endeavour with all their Art and Skill to run Parallel with the practice of Infant-Baptism although there is not the like Evidence nor the like Reason for the practice of that as there is for the practice of this First There is not the like Evidence for the practice of it St. a Ac nequid de esset ad criminis cumulum Infantes quoque parentum manibus vel impositi vel attracti amiserunt parvuli quod in primo statim Nativitatis Exordio fuerunt consecuti Nonne illi cum judicii dies venerit dicent Nos nihil fecimus nec derelicto cibo ac poculo domini ad profana contagia sponte properavimus Afterwards he tells a Story of a little Girl who having been carried to the Idol-Feasts was afterwards brought by her Mother who knew nothing of it to the Communion when he administred it and when the Deacon brought the Cup to her she turned away her Face from it but the Deacon pouring some of the Wine into her Mouth she fell into Convulsions and Vomitings which the Holy Father looking upon as a Miracle did thereupon discover that she had been polluted at the Idol-Feasts Vid. August ad Bonifacium Episcop Ep. 23. vol. 2. Cyprian being the first Author which they can produce for it and after him the b Cap. 7. Contemplat 3. p. 360 362. Author of the Book of the Ecclesiastical Hierarchy and c Catechesis 3. isluminat Hierosolym Cyril of Jerusalem are the next who make mention of it towards the latter end of the Fourth Century and then St. d De verbis domini in Evang. Johan Epist 23.106 107. Lib. 1. de peccatotum merit remiss cap. 20. lib. 1. Contra Julianum c. 11. Contra duas Epistolas Pelag. lib. 2. cap. 22. lib. 4. cap. 14. Augustine in the Fifth who indeed speaks frequently of it as of the practice of the Church in that
Christ ye are Circumcised with a Circumcision which is without hands when ye put off the body of sin of the Flesh by the Circumcision of Christ being buried together with him through Baptism Behold Paul calleth Baptism the Circumcision of a Christian Man which is done without hands not that Water may be ministred without hands but that with hands no Man any longer ought to be Circumcised albeit the Mystery of Circumcision do still remain in Faithful People To this I may add That the Servants of God were always ready to minister the Sacraments to them for whom they were instituted As for an Example we may behold Joshua Jos 2. who most diligently procured the People of Israel to be Circumcised before they entred into the Land of Promise but since the Apostles were the Preachers of the Word and the very Faithful Servants of Jesus Christ who may hereafter doubt that they Baptized Infants since Baptism is in place of Circumcision Item The Apostles did attemperate all their doings to the Shadows and Figures of the Old Testament Therefore it is certain that they did attemperate Baptism accordingly to Circumcision and Baptized Children because they were under the Figure of Baptism for the People of Israel passed through the Red Sea and the bottom of the Water of Jordan with their Children And although the Children be not always expressed neither the Women in the Holy Scriptures yet they are comprehended and understood in the same Also the Scripture evidently telleth us That the Apostles baptized whole Families or Housholds But the Children be comprehended in a Family or Houshold as the chiefest and dearest part thereof Therefore we may conclude that the Apostles did Baptize Infants or Children and not only Men of lawful age And that the House or Houshold is taken for Man Woman and Child it is manifest in the 17. of Genesis and also in that Joseph doth call Jacob with all his House to come out of the Land of Canaan into Egypt Finally I can declare out of ancient Writers that the Baptism of Infants hath continued from the Apostles time unto ours neither that it was instituted by any Councels neither of the Pope nor of other Men but commended from the Scripture by the Apostles themselves Origen upon the Declaration of St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans expounding the 6. Chapter saith That the Church of Christ received the Baptism from the very Apostles St. Hierome maketh mention of the Baptism of Infants in the 3. Book against the Pelagians Heb. 11. and in his Epistle to Leta St. Augustine reciteth for this purpose a place out of John Bishop of Constantinople in his 1. Book aganst Julian Chap. 2. and he again writing to St. Hierome Epist 28. saith That St. Cyprian not making any new Decree but firmly observing the Faith of the Church judged with his fellow Bishops that as soon as one was born he might be lawfully Baptized The place of Cyprian is to be seen in his Epistle to Fidus. Also St. Augustine in writing against the Donatists in the 4. Book Chap. 23. 24. saith That the Baptism of Infants was not derived from the authority of Man neither of Councels but from the Tradition or Doctrine of the Apostles Cyril upon Leviticus Chap. 8. approveth the Baptism of Children and condemneth the iteration of Baptism These Authorities of Men I do alledge not to tie the Baptism of Children unto the Testimonies of Men but to shew how Mens Testimonies do agree with God's Word and that the verity of Antiquity is on our side and that the Anabaptists have nothing but Lies for them and new Imaginations which feign the Baptism of Children to be the Pope's Commandment After this will I answer to the sum of your Arguments for the contrary The first which includeth all the rest is It is Written Go ye into all the World and Preach the glad Tidings to all Creatures He that believeth and is Baptized shall be Saved But he that believeth not shall be Damned c. To this I answer That nothing is added to God's Word by Baptism of Children as you pretend but that is done which the same Word doth require for that Children are accounted of Christ in the Gospel among the number of such as believe as it appeareth by these words Matth. 18. He that offendeth one of these little Babes which believe in me it were better for him to have a Milstone tyed about his Neck and to be cast into the bottom of the Sea Where plainly Christ calleth such as be not able to confess their Faith Believers because of his mere Grace he reputeth them for Believers And this is no Wonder so to be taken since God imputeth Faith for Righteousness unto Men that be of riper Age For both in Men and Children Righteousness Acceptation or Sanctification is of mere Grace and by Imputation that the Glory of God's Grace might be praised And that the Children of Faithful Parents are Sanctified and among such as do believe 1 Cor. 7. is apparent in the 1 Cor. 7. And whereas you do gather by the order of the words in the said Commandment of Christ that Children ought to be taught before they be Baptized and to this end you alledge many places out of the Acts proving that such as Confessed their Faith first were Baptized after I answer That if the order of words might weigh any thing to this Cause we have the Scripture that maketh as well for us St. Mark we read that John did Baptize in the Desart Mark 1. Preaching the Baptism of Repentance In the which place we see Baptizing go before and Preaching to follow after And also I will declare this place of Matthew exactly considered to make for the use of Baptism in Children for St. Matthew hath it written in this wise Matth. 28. All Power is given me saith the Lord in Heaven and in Earth therefore going forth 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is Disciple ye as I may express the signification of the Word that is make or gather to me Disciples of all Nations And following he declareth the way how they should gather to him Disciples out of all Nations baptizing them and teaching by baptizing and teaching ye shall procure a Church to me And both these aptly and briefly severally he setteth forth saying Baptizing them in the Name of the Father and of the Son and the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Now then Baptism goeth before Doctrine But hereby I do not gather that the Gentiles which never heard any thing before of God and of the Son of God and of the Holy Ghost ought to be Baptized neither they would permit themselves to be Baptized before they knew to what end But this I have declared to shew you upon how feeble Foundation the Anabaptists be grounded And plainly it is not true which they imagine of this Text that the Lord did